Online Now 3452

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1949
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3385
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

ESPN+SEC =Unstoppable force

  • Chris Swanson said...

    There are a bunch of highly ranked teams that haven't played anybody. It's early. Stanford was ranked before the SC game and they're still ranked. There's a chance that they're pretty good.

    Looking at records doesn't tell the whole story. Teams from the SEC play less conference games, more home games, and usually more FCS games..

    For example, Oregon State went 9-4 in 2008, but they played 9 conference games and 2 non conference top 5 teams on the road

    The 2010 Mississsippi State squad that you use as an example as a good 9 win team played Memphis, Alcorn State, Houston, and UAB out of conference. If the 2008 Beaver team had those four games as a non conference schedule, they would have gone 11-2.

    The other 9 win teams on that Auburn schedule include South Carolina and Arkansas, who got six wins over Furman, Southern Miss, Troy, Tennessee Tech, UL Monroe, and UTEP.

    Thats why records don't mean a thing to me. They don't translate between conferences.

    I doubt the the Oregon State team would have gone 11-2 if they would have had to play a 10 win Alabama team in Tuscaloosa, a 11 win LSU team, a 10 win Arkansas, a 9 win South Carolina team twice, and an undefeated Oregon team. Auburn's 2010 team had to play all those teams

    That same LSU team destroyed ATM in the Cotton Bowl, that same Alabama team destroyed Michigan State in the Capital One Bowl, Arkansas gave Ohio State all they wanted in the Sugar Bowl and one of South Carolina's 9 wins came against Alabama when they were the defending national champions and still ranked #1 in the country

    It is also incredibly naive to think navigating through the Pac 12 conference schedule is as difficult as navigating through the SEC when 6 or 7 SEC teams have more tradition, resources, and fan support than any Pac 12 teams beside USC

    aubie25

  • bhiley77 said...

    Better conference top to bottom? Let's see, there's USC and there's Oregon and there's....oh wait, nobody else.

    That's your perception and a lot of other people's perception too. However, the game results tell a different story.

    The truth resides in the won-loss records. Won-loss records are facts (or as SEC fans like to call them "useless stats."

    BRiley - If the Pac is a 2 team show and nothing else as you say, then explain the last 14 years to me when...

    *Since 1998, in games between 8 win AQ teams, the Pac has won .576
    of their games and the SEC has won .559

    *In the regular season between 8 win AQ teams the Pac is 26-18 and the SEC is 25-26.

    *Current Pac12 members are 17-15 vs current SEC teams since 1998, including 6-3 in games between 8+ win teams. (7-3 when you include 7 win Cal's win over 10 win Tennessee).

    *Since 1996, all 12 teams that are currently in the Pac12 have finished a season ranked in the AP top 10, compared to only 8 out of the 12 SEC teams.

    *Since the BCS started in 1998, the SEC and the Pac12 each have 14 AP top 4 finishes. (If including Utah twice bothers you, then without Utah the Pac's ratio is better than the SEC's with 1.20 top 4 finishes per team to the SEC's 1.16).

    *10 out of the 14 BCS seasons the PAC has had at least 1 team have the same record as 1 of the 2 teams picked for the BCS title game, all but 2 PAC schools contributed to those 10 seasons (compared to 9 out of 14 seasons for the SEC and only 6 of 12 SEC teams contributing).

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • bhiley77 said...

    That, my bro, was an exceptionally cool story.

    Now explain to me in regular guy talk why I'm wrong to say that USC and Oregon are the only close to elite programs in the PAC-12, and why the PAC-12 is superior to a conference that contains LSU, Alabama, Florida, etc. Because I'm not interested in hearing about how Cal won a bowl game one year but Ole Miss lost theirs, etc.

    Heck, skip that and just tell me which PAC teams could beat even South Carolina this year.

    The reason why PAC fans are obsessed with OOC scheduling is their own conference isn't impressive enough to make up a strong looking schedule on its own. That's why when humans are given the choice, they pick a one loss Florida team over a one loss USC team to play for it all.

    Well, I think 3 Pac teams could beat South Car this year. Oregon, the real USC, and Stanford. After all, South Car needed a non call on pass interference just to beat Vandy.

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • bhiley77 said...

    South Carolina's D-line would prison rape USC's shabby O-line. Barkley wouldn't finish the game. Stanford needs to learn how to beat Washington first. Oregon would be a fun game, not sure who would win that.

    BTW, you do realize you proved my point, right? I just picked a second tier SEC team and the only PAC team you added to my list was Stanford, which i doubt any neutral observers here would agree with you on. So at BEST you feel there are three rather then two PAC teams that aren't hot garbage.

    Huh? Aren't we talkin about this year? Isnt South Car the 2nd highest ranked SEC team right now? Your post makes no sense.

    NcaaAssassinG13

  • Chris Swanson said...

    This is why I disagree with your point. After losses:

    LSU dropped 5 spots in both polls. Georgia dropped 7 in the AP and 8 in the coaches.

    USC dropped 11 spots in both polls. Stanford dropped 9 spots. Oklahoma dropped 11 spots in the AP and 9 spots in the coaches. Wisconsin dropped more than 12 spots. Michigan State dropped 10 in the AP, 11 in the coaches. UCLA went from 19th to unranked, so they dropped at least 7 spots.

    All of those teams lost to ranked opponents. All of them played more competitively than Georgia. Oklahoma's loss to a top 10 team was punished way more harshly than LSU and Georgia's loss. Why did they drop so much further?

    I do agree that polls coming out later in the year wouldn't solve anything.

    I just can't wait for a playoff so this can all stop.

    look who else lost during those weeks, though. lsu, uga, fsu, and texas all lost during the same week. all were top 10 teams, 3 top 5. that means a ton of shuffling, trying to figure out where they all went.

    usc and ou only had 1 other top 10 team lose same week, and it was behind them (well behind them). and neither lost to presently (at time of game) top 10 teams. all of those above did. (this doesn't matter after season for sos rankings, but is relevant when discussing ranking changes throughout the year)

    also, usc only dropped 9 in one poll, 11 other. ou dropped 10 in both. uga dropped 7 and 9. lsu 5 in both.

    ucla loss was to unranked team. all the rest lost to teams way outside the top 10, and most were at least 10 spots back (only ou was within 10, and it was 9 spots back). but all of the lsu/uga/fsu/ut losses were against top 10 opp, and all within 5 spots, or higher ranked.

    as for the playoff, i'm looking forward to it. but i'm also not sold it will provide any clarity to the situation. it will provide a playoff champion, but i doubt it will remove doubt or argument for a better system. there's simply to many teams in cfb to have a decent way to decide a champ with little room for doubt.

    theharbinater ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports